D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[EzekielRaiden]

Exactly. This will never reach a satisfactory place, because the definition of agency cannot be agreed upon, and people who like agency and believe they have it are being told otherwise by those with a different definition, which will always lead to an emotional response.

And again, this divide shares a lot in common with Narrativist play vs not-Narrativist play.

I have NEVER, not ONCE, said that people have zero agency in the games folks are talking about here.

This is the fourth time you and others have put those words in my mouth. For the love of God, STOP. I have repeatedly and explicitly rejected this statement. One of my first posts, which I am 95% certain you read, explicitly spoke of degrees and variability of agency, and put many (indeed, most!) D&D campaigns in the middle or upper end of agency.

I am so goddamn sick of people doing this. You are arguing against a straw man, one I have explicitly and repeatedly rejected even BEFORE people started making it!

Or if you're going to make it, PROVE that I said that you have zero agency in these campaigns.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, granted. Such games exist, and some people enjoy them. Others do not. Is there any conclusion that can be drawn from this, other than personal preference is a thing?

The conclusion I came to from the beginning, where I agreed with Hussar that D&D's rules and structures can be an impediment to certain kinds and extents of agency in play? That if we are going to define "railroad" very strictly, we should define "sandbox" pretty strictly as well and recognize that most campaigns are neither one but instead somewhere in the voluminous in-between (which I explicitly did with a list of ten different styles that vary in type, amount, and distribution of agency)? That, therefore, "sandbox" actually means a lot of things, and the strictest definition thereof is pretty hard to pull off with a system that involves an almighty DM?

And, as I have said over and over and over, none of this is a criticism? It's just a description of different ways and means, which have attendant costs and benefits and applicability.

I very rarely play with my cards close to my chest. My conclusion has been exactly what has been out in the open all along. Subtext is for fiction, not for discussion.

 

[pemerton]

What, specifically, do other games do that D&D does not?

Some RPGs have clear and tight rules.

Just as one example, that I mentioned upthread: DriveThruRPG

From pp 9-11, 24-25, 30-31, 72:

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . .

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. He also plays the roles of all of those characters not taken on by other players; he guides the pacing of the events of the story; and he arbitrates rules calls and interpretations so that play progresses smoothly.

Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. . . . The GM presents the players with problems based on the players’ priorities. The players use their characters’ abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book. . . .

When declaring an action for a character, you say what you want and how you do it. That’s the intent and the task. . . . Descriptions of the task are vital. Through them we know which mechanics to apply; acknowledging the intent allows us to properly interpret the results of the test. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. What does your character do? A task should be easily linked to an ability: the Sword skill, the Research skill or the Health attribute. . . .

what happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test. . . .

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the stated intent does not come to pass. . . .

Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice. Keep moving, keep describing, keep roleplaying. But as soon as a character wants something that he doesn’t have, needs to know something he doesn’t know, covets something that someone else has, roll the dice.

Flip that around and it reveals a fundamental rule in Burning Wheel game play: When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome.​

I imagine it is possible to play 5e D&D so that the action is centred around player-authored priorities for their PCs. As I posted, the game doesn't have a clear obstacle system outside of combat, and so some work/adaption would be required to play it in a fashion that lets the obstacle system guide the outcome.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was being silly, not sarcastic.

Okay. Tone is hard to communicate online, so I apologize for my overreaction. That said, it definitely came across as flippant which is compatible with silliness.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

FYI you can hard-quote anything by typing "QUOTE" using [ ] instead of quotation marks, cutting and pasting the relevant text in, then typing "/QUOTE" (again replacing the quotation marks with brackets) after the bit you just pasted in.

If you want to assign a name to what you're quoting, e.g. if I wanted to quote you it would be "QUOTE=EzekielRaiden"

It'll look a bit different while you're editing but will look normal once it's posted.

Yeah, though tbh I didn't see the value in doing so. The @ mention still tags the person in question and with no actual post text to quote (it was two quotes of my own words), I saw little value in the quote approach.

 

[mamba]

Players' choices probably won't have real impact on the direction of the campaign if the only way they are resolved is by the GM deciding what happens, without any input or constraint that comes from the players.

Why do you think player's have no input in the direction? They decide who to talk to, what to say, who to oppose, who to ally with, etc

 

[pemerton]

Why do you think player's have no input in the direction? They decide who to talk to, what to say, who to oppose, who to ally with, etc

What I posted was:

Players' choices probably won't have real impact on the direction of the campaign if the only way they are resolved is by the GM deciding what happens, without any input or constraint that comes from the players.​

Does the GM decide who there is to speak to? And who there is to oppose or ally with? Does the GM decides what happens when a player has their PC speak to one of those people?

If all of that is being decided by the GM, then I don't think the players have much impact on the direction of the campaign, other than deciding which bit of the GM's stuff to focus on.

 

[mamba]

If all of that is being decided by the GM, then I don't think the players have much impact on the direction of the campaign

I on the other hand do not think that tells me much about how much influence the players have on the direction of the campaign. The DM can have created the entire setting and be permissive when it comes to the actions of the characters within it, or the players can have created the setting and the DM still is restrictive when it comes to the results of their characters' actions. To me it is more about the DM or the game system.

You can argue that a DM who 'allows' the players to create the setting probably will also be permissive when it comes to the characters' actions, but that still would mean that you cannot deduce the opposite.

 

[pemerton]

The DM can have created the entire setting and be permissive when it comes to the actions of the characters within it, or the players can have created the setting and the DM still is restrictive when it comes to the results of their characters' actions. To me it is more about the DM or the game system.

I don't know what sort of examples of play you have in mind.

I'm also not sure what you mean by the GM being "permissive when it comes to the actions of the characters". Isn't it the players' job to declare their PCs' actions? Why do they need permission from the GM?

 

[mamba]

I'm also not sure what you mean by the GM being "permissive when it comes to the actions of the characters". Isn't it the players' job to declare their PCs' actions? Why do they need permission from the GM?

the players can of course declare their actions, what they cannot do is declare that their actions succeed, to me that is where the permissive or restrictive DM comes in. Much of the resolution is decided by the DM, they can decide no check is needed and the action succeeds, they can say the action fails / is impossible, they can ask for a check, set the DC, and describe what happens because of the result. Do you think that whether the DM is permissive or restrictive does not affect the outcome of a character's action despite all of this?

At a wider scope, the DM can make a goal easy or hard to accomplish. Going back to the 'let us find a Spelljammer' scenario, what it takes to find the SJ and how difficult it is is largely up to the DM too, so here too will be a difference between a permissive DM and one who is not.